R.H. v. Dep't of Human Servs.
205 A.3d 410
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2019Background
- In Feb 2017 ChildLine allegedly mailed Petitioner R.H. notice that he was listed as a perpetrator in an indicated child-abuse report and that he had 90 days to seek administrative review or appeal.
- The notice was addressed to Petitioner's Hammond Hill Road address and was not returned as undeliverable; Petitioner later filed an appeal by fax on Dec. 21, 2017.
- Petitioner testified he never received the mailed notice, learned of the indicated report in late summer 2017 after an employer background check, and immediately contacted counsel.
- The ALJ applied the mailbox rule (presumption of receipt when properly mailed), found the appeal untimely, and denied nunc pro tunc relief because Petitioner failed to act promptly after learning of the report.
- The BHA adopted the ALJ's recommendation; Petitioner sought judicial review. The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding the mailbox rule was inapplicable because the Department did not introduce proof of mailing at the hearing and concluding Petitioner was entitled to appeal nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mailbox rule applied to create a presumption of receipt of the Feb. 7, 2017 notice | Dept lacked evidence at hearing proving the notice was mailed; affidavit was not introduced, so no presumption | ChildLine mailed notice to Petitioner's correct address and USPS did not return it, creating the presumption of receipt | Mailbox rule inapplicable: Department failed to introduce proof of mailing at the hearing, so no presumption of receipt |
| Whether Petitioner was entitled to an appeal nunc pro tunc | Petitioner argued delay was excused because he never received the notice, learned of the report in late summer, was told to wait due to agency delays, and promptly acted when told how to appeal | Department argued the appeal was untimely and Petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances, prompt filing after notice, or lack of prejudice | Court held Petitioner entitled to nunc pro tunc relief because (1) no proof the statutory 90-day period began in Feb., (2) timing from when Petitioner actually learned of the report made Dec. 21 appeal not clearly untimely, and (3) potential breakdown in administrative process existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Supermarkets Gen.), 600 A.2d 633 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (mailbox rule presumes receipt when properly mailed but presumption is rebuttable)
- J.C. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 720 A.2d 193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (standards for allowing an appeal nunc pro tunc)
- H.D. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (nunc pro tunc relief where delay caused by extraordinary circumstances or breakdown)
- L.H. v. Department of Human Services, 197 A.3d 310 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (agency must present evidence of mailing at hearing for mailbox rule to apply)
- D.C. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 150 A.3d 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (due process requires clear notice of right to post-deprivation hearing)
- C.E. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 97 A.3d 828 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (timeliness of administrative appeals is jurisdictional; nunc pro tunc relief limited)